peeker643 wrote:Guys who stink often are not defined by long NFL careers. I thought was self-evident enough but...

6 years, 4 teams.

He was fine against Ravens. Threw some balls up for grabs too. Was late and behind too. That's a trait he has. Some days you get away with it.

Not to mention dude ain't Blood & Guts Patton in the face of adversity. He looked like the whiny kid who lost his bike for a week cuz his parents found it unattended. Very Seneca Wallace-like IMO.

Hope he enjoys his stay at the Last Chance Saloon.

Oh...and know how else I know what Jason Campbell is aside from 4 teams in 6 years and his mediocre numbers and poor leadership attributes?

Brian Hoyer started ahead of the #2 guy.

Meh... not worth the arguing. Not good enough to be the guy equals shit at this point and IMO.

And your opinion is immutable and infallible. You don't think I've learned anything over all these years?

Look, I know you know how he got where he is and the circumstances at DC and Otown. I also know that when you have 3 games and your ratings are 100+, 100+ and 44 that isn't horse shit. It's a bad game; so far. There is NFW that Jason campbell's resume is that of Senaca freaking Wallace. And I can see the level of difference on the field in the 2 players career body of work. Stop being a pouty bitch over a bad game.

You want to just hold your breath and turn blue until Aaron Rogers shows up, kewl. But that's what you're doing.

A far cry, however, from the "build the cockpit" logical Peeker of days of yore.

I'm not saying his resume' is that of Wallace, I'm saying his countenance, expressions and body language during Sunday's game were Seneca-like. And that was disappointing.

More disappointing than the performance and the absolute willingness to check down and save his longest drive of the day for late in the 4th quarter and down 21.

In short, he went through the motions. In his defense, he wasn't alone. Josh Gordon seemed interested and engaged only when running fly routes and Campbell has precious few weapons and zero running game to speak of.

He's fine as a QB#2 or QB#3. I'm just tired of watching 2nd and 3rd level QBs running the show. Campbell will be 32 in a month. He is what he's always going to be.

jerryroche wrote:QB is hands-down the most important position in all of sports. So don't draft a damn QB next spring -- draft two or three! Hell, why not go into next summer with six or eight young QBs (including UFAs) and let them duke it out? Best man wins. Survival of the fittest.

Since you've doubled down on this a couple times now, I'll assume you aren't joking?

How many practice reps and preseason snaps does your version of reality allow? May I ask, out of curiosity, where on the team you're cutting 3 to 5 roster spots?

And just because I enjoy banging my head into brick walls, I'll also add the reminder that Joe Flacco & Colin Kaepernick were your starting QBs in last year's Super Bowl, and Alex Smith is QBing the team with the second best record in the league at the moment.

peeker643 wrote:I'm not saying his resume' is that of Wallace, I'm saying his countenance, expressions and body language during Sunday's game were Seneca-like. And that was disappointing.

More disappointing than the performance and the absolute willingness to check down and save his longest drive of the day for late in the 4th quarter and down 21.

In short, he went through the motions. In his defense, he wasn't alone. Josh Gordon seemed interested and engaged only when running fly routes and Campbell has precious few weapons and zero running game to speak of.

He's fine as a QB#2 or QB#3. I'm just tired of watching 2nd and 3rd level QBs running the show. Campbell will be 32 in a month. He is what he's always going to be.

jerryroche wrote:QB is hands-down the most important position in all of sports. So don't draft a damn QB next spring -- draft two or three! Hell, why not go into next summer with six or eight young QBs (including UFAs) and let them duke it out? Best man wins. Survival of the fittest.

Since you've doubled down on this a couple times now, I'll assume you aren't joking?

Not joking: keep the best two and Hoyer. That's your three QB slots on the roster. As for practice and scrimmage reps, Chud and Norv should be able to sort that out; that's their job.

But you do make a good point about last year's Super Bowl QBs. I contend that the rest of the Browns' roster, with some experience, has playoff potential, except for RB, which you can get in the mid rounds. (Yes, even the receivers, who IMHO just need someone to deliver a catchable ball--even if they're blanketed--like the best QBs do.)

Just my opinion, HooDoo, after watching a string of horseshit QBs dating back to the early 90s.

peeker643 wrote:Meh... not worth the arguing. Not good enough to be the guy equals shit at this point and IMO.

My name is Hiko and I support this message.

^^^^

Holding his breath until Aaron Rogers is here ignoring HooDoo's post.

There is a gulf bigger than the Sea of Tranquility between Aaron Rodgers and Jason Campbell.

If Jason Campbell = even Joe Flacco then we can have a different conversation. But he doesn't. He is a backup. He should be a backup. He is not worth discussing as a serious option as a starting QB for a team that has any plans to do anything at all ever. If you think he is, I don't know what to say to you other than "good luck with that". I'm not going to argue about it because the guy simply isn't worth the effort.

peeker643 wrote:Meh... not worth the arguing. Not good enough to be the guy equals shit at this point and IMO.

My name is Hiko and I support this message.

^^^^

Holding his breath until Aaron Rogers is here ignoring HooDoo's post.

There is a gulf bigger than the Sea of Tranquility between Aaron Rodgers and Jason Campbell.

If Jason Campbell = even Joe Flacco then we can have a different conversation. But he doesn't. He is a backup. He should be a backup. He is not worth discussing as a serious option as a starting QB for a team that has any plans to do anything at all ever. If you think he is, I don't know what to say to you other than "good luck with that". I'm not going to argue about it because the guy simply isn't worth the effort.

Jason Campbell is a step, as in all probability is Brian Hoyer.

Both these guys are steps forward from Charlie Frye, Jake Corpse, Colt McCoy and Brandon Weeden. They are competent, veteran NFL quarterbacks that in the right circumstances can win you a game. Campbell has proven this.

In this sense, they provide a benchmark that the new kid is going to have to surpass to play. No more deer-in-headlights OJT. While the stop gap is in place the rest of the team keeps building. This is not an irrelevant I'm-sucking-my-thumb-until-The_Man-is-in-place development. The Browns were never going from 4 - 12 to 12 - 4 in a year or two.

You can talk to me about JC's body language in an abortion of a blow out all you want. You're not wrong. Except if you want to ignore his body language against B-more in the 4th quarter. Campbell really is the same player in both games and circumstances. This is why he's an average NFL quarterback at best.

The gulf between a Joe Flacco and a Jason Campbell isn't nearly as wide as you create in your mind. Is Flacco better? Of course. He's a legit long-term starter and not a stop-gap. But it's not like he's great or all pro or anything this season.

But to suggest campbell is horse shit is way too much hyperbole for a serous and thoughtful poster such as myself. It's hysteria. He's Hoyer's back up and hopefully, but hardly assured, Hoyer is the bridge to the future with competent play. Campbell is there as marginally servicable until he's back and as a decent insurance policy.

To set this up and "They're all Sperg" until we get Arron Rogers is, IDK, just not indicative of a rational standard for me.

peeker643 wrote:Meh... not worth the arguing. Not good enough to be the guy equals shit at this point and IMO.

My name is Hiko and I support this message.

^^^^

Holding his breath until Aaron Rogers is here ignoring HooDoo's post.

There is a gulf bigger than the Sea of Tranquility between Aaron Rodgers and Jason Campbell.

If Jason Campbell = even Joe Flacco then we can have a different conversation. But he doesn't. He is a backup. He should be a backup. He is not worth discussing as a serious option as a starting QB for a team that has any plans to do anything at all ever. If you think he is, I don't know what to say to you other than "good luck with that". I'm not going to argue about it because the guy simply isn't worth the effort.

Jason Campbell is a step, as in all probability is Brian Hoyer.

Both these guys are steps forward from Charlie Frye, Jake Corpse, Colt McCoy and Brandon Weeden. They are competent, veteran NFL quarterbacks that in the right circumstances can win you a game. Campbell has proven this.

In this sense, they provide a benchmark that the new kid is going to have to surpass to play. No more deer-in-headlights OJT. While the stop gap is in place the rest of the team keeps building. This is not an irrelevant I'm-sucking-my-thumb-until-The_Man-is-in-place development. The Browns were never going from 4 - 12 to 12 - 4 in a year or two.

You can talk to me about JC's body language in an abortion of a blow out all you want. You're not wrong. Except if you want to ignore his body language against B-more in the 4th quarter. Campbell really is the same player in both games and circumstances. This is why he's an average NFL quarterback at best.

The gulf between a Joe Flacco and a Jason Campbell isn't nearly as wide as you create in your mind. Is Flacco better? Of course. He's a legit long-term starter and not a stop-gap. But it's not like he's great or all pro or anything this season.

But to suggest campbell is horse shit is way too much hyperbole for a serous and thoughtful poster such as myself. It's hysteria. He's Hoyer's back up and hopefully, but hardly assured, Hoyer is the bridge to the future with competent play. Campbell is there as marginally servicable until he's back and as a decent insurance policy.

To set this up and "They're all Sperg" until we get Arron Rogers is, IDK, just not indicative of a rational standard for me.

Well since that isn't even close to what I'm saying, you can rest easy now.

Campbell and Hoyer are a step better than Weeden, Colt, et al, the same way that Colt is a step better than me and you.

And none of us is good enough for me to care about.

I don't want Campbell as the Browns QB. I don't want Hoyer as the Browns QB. If that is the best they got, then that's who they should play. But they are feh.

I'd love a Rodgers, but there are PLENTY of guys in between Rodgers and Campbell/Hoyer that I would be fine with. To me, Campbell/Hoyer are backup quality players, and I find it a waste of time to discuss them outside of a stop-gap necessity. I could give a shit if he is a step better than Weeden. Ogbannaya is a step better than McGahee and yet I still don't want either starting at RB next year.

Frustration with the fact you're right about Campbell being a necessary step between Brandolt McWeeden and a legit guy running the show.

Hyperbole in that "Shitshow" is what we got Sunday. Competency at other times. Same as Hoyer likely would have produced over larger sample size.

You're right and you're looking at it more objectively. I was not. But I knew my newborn would eventually use the toilet and go to college. Didn't make me any less sick of changing shitty diapers or wondering when she'd stop sticking shit in electrical outlets.

HoodooMan wrote:If we'd have gone with Hoyer & Campbell from Game 1 and if we had a running game comparable to KC's, it might very well be us that's competing for a playoff bye this year instead of them.

^Equals shit at this point, apparently.

I highly doubt that since we cannot assume that Hoyer/Campbell would not have more Weeden-esque games like the one Campbell had Sunday. My thought is that Hoyer/Campbell are lodged somewhere between Alex Smith and Brandon Weeden, and that's just not a recipe for success, especially prolonged success.

Campbell is a serviceable backup. He can give you competent, average performances. He can also go off the rails and give you a dud. Yep, you might be able to win 7 games with him. Hell, if you have a great running game (which they don't have) and a great defense (which they don't have), you might even be able to win 10 (KC's record is an aberration, that's a 10 win team). But it's highly difficult and highly unlikely you accomplish anything real with him (or Hoyer).

And taking steps is meaningless if you fall down the stairs before you get to the top.

When the Browns have the pieces in place that I think will give them a legit shot to climb those stairs, then I'll be excited. Campbell? Does he make it to the middle of the stairs before he fails? Or does he make it to the middle of the stairs and then someone else takes over for him and gets the team all the way up? I don't know. Nor am I particularly interested at this point since HE'S the only known in this scenario.

I don't know if Banner/Lombardi will have good drafts, I don't know if QB X that they acquire somehow will be any good, I don't know if the D will continue to improve or if the running game will get better.

Life experience has taught me it is foolish to assume those questions will be answered affirmatively, so I'll just base my expectations on what is currently and in reality in place, and that is that Jason Freaking Campbell is the best QB on your team, a team with limitations at other key areas.

Frustration with the fact you're right about Campbell being a necessary step between Brandolt McWeeden and a legit guy running the show.

Hyperbole in that "Shitshow" is what we got Sunday. Competency at other times. Same as Hoyer likely would have produced over larger sample size.

You're right and you're looking at it more objectively. I was not. But I knew my newborn would eventually use the toilet and go to college. Didn't make me any less sick of changing shitty diapers or wondering when she'd stop sticking shit in electrical outlets.

HoodooMan wrote:If we'd have gone with Hoyer & Campbell from Game 1 and if we had a running game comparable to KC's, it might very well be us that's competing for a playoff bye this year instead of them.

^Equals shit at this point, apparently.

So Campbell/Hoyer are interchangeable? Meaning Campbell = Smith + Running game? is that the tale you're telling with your numerical/statistical review? Is that the same area code where you've landed with your extrapolation?

That means based on same/similar (as like what follows):

That we're better off with Weeden under center and that Weeden + Charles equal 9-1?

Or is this a farcical adventure in creative math? Cuz I'd hate for it to be that.

HoodooMan wrote:If we'd have gone with Hoyer & Campbell from Game 1 and if we had a running game comparable to KC's, it might very well be us that's competing for a playoff bye this year instead of them.

^Equals shit at this point, apparently.

So Campbell/Hoyer are interchangeable? Meaning Campbell = Smith + Running game? is that the tale you're telling with your numerical/statistical review? Is that the same area code where you've landed with your extrapolation?

That means based on same/similar (as like what follows):

That we're better off with Weeden under center and that Weeden + Charles equal 9-1?

Or is this a farcical adventure in creative math? Cuz I'd hate for it to be that.

I don't recall him having a game as poor as Campbell's last game, however. Consistently mediocre is how that guy rolls. Dependable, if you have enough pieces around him. Flawed enough to make it very difficult to win a ring with him, but not impossible.

Don't feel the same about Campbell and don't think Campbell in KC = 9-1 right now.

HoodooMan wrote:If we'd have gone with Hoyer & Campbell from Game 1 and if we had a running game comparable to KC's, it might very well be us that's competing for a playoff bye this year instead of them.

^Equals shit at this point, apparently.

So Campbell/Hoyer are interchangeable? Meaning Campbell = Smith + Running game? is that the tale you're telling with your numerical/statistical review? Is that the same area code where you've landed with your extrapolation?

That means based on same/similar (as like what follows):

That we're better off with Weeden under center and that Weeden + Charles equal 9-1?

Or is this a farcical adventure in creative math? Cuz I'd hate for it to be that.

wow. Did you REALLY just post that to BOLSTER your case?

I'm not trying to bolster anything.

I'm saying passer rating is as antiquated and useless as passing yards any more.

Campbell's clown show of three yard tosses down 21 elevated his passer rating. When in actuality it far lessened any chance the Browns had to win the game and score points.

Read it:

To make the concept more tangible, here are some examples:

• From your own 20-yard line, an 8-yard gain on third-and-10 is worth about minus-0.2 EPA because you don't get a first down; the same 8 yards on third-and-7 is worth 1.4 EPA for converting a long third down and keeping the drive alive. EPA knows that not all yards are created equal.

• A turnover on first-and-10 at midfield that is taken back to your own 20 is worth minus-5.5 EPA; a Hail Mary interception at the end of the half from midfield is not nearly as penalizing. EPA knows that all turnovers aren't created equal, as well.

• A 60-yard pass play down to the 1-yard line on third-and-10 is worth 5.7 EPA because it puts you right on the doorstep of scoring. The subsequent 1-yard rushing TD on first-and-goal is worth much less, even though that's the play that actually gets you the six points. Think about which play is more valuable to the offense (not in terms of fantasy football).

Because of its play-by-play nature, EPA can be divided to look at pass EPA or rush EPA for offenses and defenses. Looking at EPA on a per-play or per-drive basis can tell you which units have been the most efficient given the opportunities they've had. EPA can even be used to evaluate the hidden contributions special-teams units make to the scoreboard.

The overall point here is that EPA is the granular, play-by-play version of what wins the game. The team that has more points wins 100 percent of all games, but points don't change with every play in the game. Yards, first downs and turnovers are significant and do change somewhat on a play-by-play basis, but those are crude subdivisions of points that aren't even on the same scale and don't always correlate with winning.

EPA accounts for all of those events and ends up matching the score at the end of the game. Because EPA also changes on a play-by-play basis, it is the correct way to split up those points on the scoreboard. If you want something that, at the end of the game, is as good as the score at saying who wins but that also changes with every play in the game, use EPA.

That's what I'm trying to say and I can't get this computer (now without snag-it) to snip what I want to snip.

But the EPA and QPR developed by Adnaced NFL Stats doesn't reward a knob-job like Campbell's on Sunday. It pretty much calls it what it is and you can see why Campbell's QBR is much lower here than Smith's and barely beyond Weeden's. And Smith ain't all that to write home about but he's way beyond being compared to Campbell+RB = Smith in KC.

Hikohadon wrote:Just for the record, I'm not the one that likes Alex Smith.

I don't recall him having a game as poor as Campbell's last game, however. Consistently mediocre is how that guy rolls. Dependable, if you have enough pieces around him. Flawed enough to make it very difficult to win a ring with him, but not impossible.

Playing around with Pro Football Reference's game finder...

In 90 career games, Alex Smith has 35 performances with a QB rating under 70. Two of those are 1-attempt games, so drop it to 88 & 33, and 37.5% of the time you're getting a "bad" game out of Alex Smith. (I think that's a fair marker. The only qualifying QBs with ratings under 70 this year are Pryor, Weeden, Geno, and Freeman.)

In 81 career games, Jason Campbell has 21 performances with a QB rating under 70, or 25.9%

*-only QBs under that number on the year: Brandon Weeden, Josh Freeman, and yes...ALEX SMITH!

Checkdowns aren't the same as checkdown-puffery (and I doubt that's a real thing). There are definitley times and places for checkdowns. As John Gruden says, "You can't go broke if you make a profit every play". But there are times (and I'm sure Smith has had them too) when it's not the proper play. And Sunday with 8 minutes left and down 21 was one of those occasions. If you disagree and you'd rather point to Campbell's stellar stats on that drive and live on his QB rating then that's fine. I have a Walkman you might like too

Like I said, Smith ain't living high on the hog either when it comes to QBR and EPA. Quite mediocre and I never stated he was more.

But that's waaaaaaaaaay beyond where Weeden and Campbell reside.

My eyes show me that and the numbers back it up.

Just wish Darren Sproles.....err....Dion lewis hadn't gone down. We coulda been the Chiefs!!!

HoodooMan wrote:So the idea that a higher completion% & YPA are good, while a higher number of INTs is bad is an antiquated one?

I've yet to see an explanation of football advanced stats that compels me to pay any attention, BTW.

I'm not big on advanced stats in general. But I thought the ESPN issue this week with the QBs was prety interesting. That led to their stats and advanced metrics and that led to looking a bit nmore deeply at them.

And no, it doesn't say that about INTs, COMPL% and YPA. Not at all. It says there are downs and distances certain higher leverage situations that those traditional stats don't go far enough to measure and these attempt to do that.

The Colt/Weeden/Campbell conundrum (and, like I said, countless others for sure) to take the 4 yard throw on 3rd and 11. Or Weeden's propensity for throwing the 4th and goal ball into the stand to avoid the rush. It takes down, distance, score, situations into account.

It ain't just batting average.

Just intrigued me and is becoming much more widespread amongst statisticians, scouts, analysts, etc.

Give me a QB* with a completion % above 60 and a YPA above 7, who doesn't throw too many INTs...over a decent sample size? That's a good enough QB. Give me a QB who struggles with any of those three, and you're likely going to have some problems. Give me a QB at 65%+ and YPA 8+, who doesn't throw too many INTs (again, over a decent sample size), and that's an elite QB.

The best reason I know to consider anything else is that those three numbers don't account for the advantages you can get with a running QB.

*QB or QB-play (supporting casts matter)

ETA: and IMO sample size accounts for those "but he just threw it for 9 yards on 3rd & 12" situations to my satisfaction

Give me a QB* with a completion % above 60 and a YPA above 7, who doesn't throw too many INTs...over a decent sample size? That's a good QB. Give me a QB who struggles with any of those three, and you're likely going to have some problems. Give me a QB at 65%+ and YPA 8+, who doesn't throw too many INTs (again, over a decent sample size), and that's an elite QB.

The best reason I know to consider anything else is that those three numbers don't account for the advantages you can get with a running QB.

*QB or QB-play (supporting casts matter)

ETA: and IMO sample size accounts for those "but he just threw it for 9 yards on 3rd & 12" situations to my satisfaction

I mostly liked it because it refutes Hiko's assertion that Matthew Stafford blows.

Give me a QB* with a completion % above 60 and a YPA above 7, who doesn't throw too many INTs...over a decent sample size? That's a good QB. Give me a QB who struggles with any of those three, and you're likely going to have some problems. Give me a QB at 65%+ and YPA 8+, who doesn't throw too many INTs (again, over a decent sample size), and that's an elite QB.

The best reason I know to consider anything else is that those three numbers don't account for the advantages you can get with a running QB.

*QB or QB-play (supporting casts matter)

ETA: and IMO sample size accounts for those "but he just threw it for 9 yards on 3rd & 12" situations to my satisfaction

I mostly liked it because it refutes Hiko's assertion that Matthew Stafford blows.

If I'm being fair, Stafford has been pretty good this year. I'd sure as hell take him at this point - he falls into that "good enough to maybe win" category that is between Aaron Rodgers and QB's better than Jason Campbell.

Hikohadon wrote:Just for the record, I'm not the one that likes Alex Smith.

I don't recall him having a game as poor as Campbell's last game, however. Consistently mediocre is how that guy rolls. Dependable, if you have enough pieces around him. Flawed enough to make it very difficult to win a ring with him, but not impossible.

Playing around with Pro Football Reference's game finder...

In 90 career games, Alex Smith has 35 performances with a QB rating under 70. Two of those are 1-attempt games, so drop it to 88 & 33, and 37.5% of the time you're getting a "bad" game out of Alex Smith. (I think that's a fair marker. The only qualifying QBs with ratings under 70 this year are Pryor, Weeden, Geno, and Freeman.)

In 81 career games, Jason Campbell has 21 performances with a QB rating under 70, or 25.9%

:shrug

ETA: Smiff's two KC games < 70

Meh, there are a whole slew of his games I haven't watched. Something about Alex Smith doesn't scream "Must See TV".

I shall put Smith on the very bottom rung of Acceptable Quality If You Want Any Chance, meaning that anyone in the spectrum between Aaron Rodgers and Alex Smith gives you a shot depending on how ideal the surrounding cast and circumstances are.

Then there's Campbell (and probably Hoyer, although I haven't seen enough to prove that theory), who is just below the acceptable range.

On the HNSM (Hiko Non-Suck Matrix), Rodgers is a 6.83 and Smith is a 3.915, whereas Campbell is a 3.623. That's with 7.28 naturally being a perfect score, and 0.24 being the equivalent of 0 (what we like to refer to as the Colt Number).

Give me a QB* with a completion % above 60 and a YPA above 7, who doesn't throw too many INTs...over a decent sample size? That's a good QB. Give me a QB who struggles with any of those three, and you're likely going to have some problems. Give me a QB at 65%+ and YPA 8+, who doesn't throw too many INTs (again, over a decent sample size), and that's an elite QB.

The best reason I know to consider anything else is that those three numbers don't account for the advantages you can get with a running QB.

*QB or QB-play (supporting casts matter)

ETA: and IMO sample size accounts for those "but he just threw it for 9 yards on 3rd & 12" situations to my satisfaction

I mostly liked it because it refutes Hiko's assertion that Matthew Stafford blows.

If I'm being fair, Stafford has been pretty good this year. I'd sure as hell take him at this point - he falls into that "good enough to maybe win" category that is between Aaron Rodgers and QB's better than Jason Campbell.

Hikohadon wrote:Just for the record, I'm not the one that likes Alex Smith.

I don't recall him having a game as poor as Campbell's last game, however. Consistently mediocre is how that guy rolls. Dependable, if you have enough pieces around him. Flawed enough to make it very difficult to win a ring with him, but not impossible.

Playing around with Pro Football Reference's game finder...

In 90 career games, Alex Smith has 35 performances with a QB rating under 70. Two of those are 1-attempt games, so drop it to 88 & 33, and 37.5% of the time you're getting a "bad" game out of Alex Smith. (I think that's a fair marker. The only qualifying QBs with ratings under 70 this year are Pryor, Weeden, Geno, and Freeman.)

In 81 career games, Jason Campbell has 21 performances with a QB rating under 70, or 25.9%

:shrug

ETA: Smiff's two KC games < 70

Meh, there are a whole slew of his games I haven't watched. Something about Alex Smith doesn't scream "Must See TV".

I shall put Smith on the very bottom rung of Acceptable Quality If You Want Any Chance, meaning that anyone in the spectrum between Aaron Rodgers and Alex Smith gives you a shot depending on how ideal the surrounding cast and circumstances are.

Then there's Campbell (and probably Hoyer, although I haven't seen enough to prove that theory), who is just below the acceptable range.

On the HNSM (Hiko Non-Suck Matrix), Rodgers is a 6.83 and Smith is a 3.915, whereas Campbell is a 3.623. That's with 7.28 naturally being a perfect score, and 0.24 being the equivalent of 0 (what we like to refer to as the Colt Number).

Do you have a sortable matrix??? IS YOUR MATRIX SORTABLE????!!!!!!

If you have a sortable matrix I will officially validate it.

Otherwise.....piss off.

I do find it so cool when zero ain't zero that I'm leaning toward allowing your matrix even if it ain't sortable, truth be told.

HoodooMan wrote:If we'd have gone with Hoyer & Campbell from Game 1 and if we had a running game comparable to KC's, it might very well be us that's competing for a playoff bye this year instead of them.

^Equals shit at this point, apparently.

So Campbell/Hoyer are interchangeable? Meaning Campbell = Smith + Running game? is that the tale you're telling with your numerical/statistical review? Is that the same area code where you've landed with your extrapolation?

That means based on same/similar (as like what follows):

That we're better off with Weeden under center and that Weeden + Charles equal 9-1?

Or is this a farcical adventure in creative math? Cuz I'd hate for it to be that.

wow. Did you REALLY just post that to BOLSTER your case?

I'm not trying to bolster anything.

I'm saying passer rating is as antiquated and useless as passing yards any more.

Campbell's clown show of three yard tosses down 21 elevated his passer rating. When in actuality it far lessened any chance the Browns had to win the game and score points.

Read it:

To make the concept more tangible, here are some examples:

• From your own 20-yard line, an 8-yard gain on third-and-10 is worth about minus-0.2 EPA because you don't get a first down; the same 8 yards on third-and-7 is worth 1.4 EPA for converting a long third down and keeping the drive alive. EPA knows that not all yards are created equal.

• A turnover on first-and-10 at midfield that is taken back to your own 20 is worth minus-5.5 EPA; a Hail Mary interception at the end of the half from midfield is not nearly as penalizing. EPA knows that all turnovers aren't created equal, as well.

• A 60-yard pass play down to the 1-yard line on third-and-10 is worth 5.7 EPA because it puts you right on the doorstep of scoring. The subsequent 1-yard rushing TD on first-and-goal is worth much less, even though that's the play that actually gets you the six points. Think about which play is more valuable to the offense (not in terms of fantasy football).

Because of its play-by-play nature, EPA can be divided to look at pass EPA or rush EPA for offenses and defenses. Looking at EPA on a per-play or per-drive basis can tell you which units have been the most efficient given the opportunities they've had. EPA can even be used to evaluate the hidden contributions special-teams units make to the scoreboard.

The overall point here is that EPA is the granular, play-by-play version of what wins the game. The team that has more points wins 100 percent of all games, but points don't change with every play in the game. Yards, first downs and turnovers are significant and do change somewhat on a play-by-play basis, but those are crude subdivisions of points that aren't even on the same scale and don't always correlate with winning.

EPA accounts for all of those events and ends up matching the score at the end of the game. Because EPA also changes on a play-by-play basis, it is the correct way to split up those points on the scoreboard. If you want something that, at the end of the game, is as good as the score at saying who wins but that also changes with every play in the game, use EPA.

That's what I'm trying to say and I can't get this computer (now without snag-it) to snip what I want to snip.

But the EPA and QPR developed by Adnaced NFL Stats doesn't reward a knob-job like Campbell's on Sunday. It pretty much calls it what it is and you can see why Campbell's QBR is much lower here than Smith's and barely beyond Weeden's. And Smith ain't all that to write home about but he's way beyond being compared to Campbell+RB = Smith in KC.

Give me a QB* with a completion % above 60 and a YPA above 7, who doesn't throw too many INTs...over a decent sample size? That's a good enough QB. Give me a QB who struggles with any of those three, and you're likely going to have some problems. Give me a QB at 65%+ and YPA 8+, who doesn't throw too many INTs (again, over a decent sample size), and that's an elite QB.

The best reason I know to consider anything else is that those three numbers don't account for the advantages you can get with a running QB.

*QB or QB-play (supporting casts matter)

ETA: and IMO sample size accounts for those "but he just threw it for 9 yards on 3rd & 12" situations to my satisfaction

This should be the litmus test for elite, not elite and suck, doesn't suck.

Elegant in its simplicity. Seriously.

Did Phil teach you that? (couldn't resist)

I don't need to be patient, they're going to be shit forever. - CDT, discussing my favorite NFL team

Give me a QB* with a completion % above 60 and a YPA above 7, who doesn't throw too many INTs...over a decent sample size? That's a good enough QB. Give me a QB who struggles with any of those three, and you're likely going to have some problems. Give me a QB at 65%+ and YPA 8+, who doesn't throw too many INTs (again, over a decent sample size), and that's an elite QB.

The best reason I know to consider anything else is that those three numbers don't account for the advantages you can get with a running QB.

*QB or QB-play (supporting casts matter)

ETA: and IMO sample size accounts for those "but he just threw it for 9 yards on 3rd & 12" situations to my satisfaction

This should be the litmus test for elite, not elite and suck, doesn't suck.

Elegant in its simplicity. Seriously.

Did Phil teach you that? (couldn't resist)

The problem with advanced aka SABR metrics in football is it is a team sport. The result of one play isn't quantified by a single batter or pitcher. For that expected hooptijue to work linemen have to block, coaches have to send in good plays, involved skilled players need to contribute, etc.

I really will read it more because it is interesting, but it has inherent flaws.

From what I can remember, the last time I read about QBR, it seemed to me like there was a subjective component to it (assigning credit & blame on completed/incomplete passes, etc), and that's a pretty serious flaw, IMO. Maybe I misunderstood something. Shrug.

Give me a QB* with a completion % above 60 and a YPA above 7, who doesn't throw too many INTs...over a decent sample size? That's a good QB. Give me a QB who struggles with any of those three, and you're likely going to have some problems. Give me a QB at 65%+ and YPA 8+, who doesn't throw too many INTs (again, over a decent sample size), and that's an elite QB.

The best reason I know to consider anything else is that those three numbers don't account for the advantages you can get with a running QB.

*QB or QB-play (supporting casts matter)

ETA: and IMO sample size accounts for those "but he just threw it for 9 yards on 3rd & 12" situations to my satisfaction

I mostly liked it because it refutes Hiko's assertion that Matthew Stafford blows.

If I'm being fair, Stafford has been pretty good this year. I'd sure as hell take him at this point - he falls into that "good enough to maybe win" category that is between Aaron Rodgers and QB's better than Jason Campbell.

Give me a QB* with a completion % above 60 and a YPA above 7, who doesn't throw too many INTs...over a decent sample size? That's a good QB. Give me a QB who struggles with any of those three, and you're likely going to have some problems. Give me a QB at 65%+ and YPA 8+, who doesn't throw too many INTs (again, over a decent sample size), and that's an elite QB.

The best reason I know to consider anything else is that those three numbers don't account for the advantages you can get with a running QB.

*QB or QB-play (supporting casts matter)

ETA: and IMO sample size accounts for those "but he just threw it for 9 yards on 3rd & 12" situations to my satisfaction

I mostly liked it because it refutes Hiko's assertion that Matthew Stafford blows.

If I'm being fair, Stafford has been pretty good this year. I'd sure as hell take him at this point - he falls into that "good enough to maybe win" category that is between Aaron Rodgers and QB's better than Jason Campbell.

Same rating this year as in 2011. He was 15th or so last season.

Not that it means anything.

There was a season when he was 31st, too. So....

The way he played last season (well into his career at that point) was what I based my disdain on. He was fuckawful last year. Again, I admit that fantasy football-based emotion may have factored into it. I have similar hatred for Doug Martin this year.

Last edited by Hikohadon on Tue Nov 19, 2013 9:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Hikohadon wrote:Meh, there are a whole slew of his games I haven't watched. Something about Alex Smith doesn't scream "Must See TV".

Right. He's not Brees or Rogers or Brady.

No one who doesn't have those 3 has any shot of being a contender.

We get it already.

Or Flacco. Or Roethlisberger. Or Tannehill. Or EJ Manuel. Or Luck. Or Rivers. Or Wilson. Or Kaepernick. Or Palmer. Or Bradford. Or Stafford. Or Cutler. Or Newton. Or Ryan. Or Romo. Or Manning. Or Manning. Or RG3. Or even Nick Fucking Foles.

Not that all of these are even necessarily "better" QB's that Alex, just way fucking more interesting to watch.

I'd give you a "good effort" on trying to summarize my QB stance, but that would be untruthful.